Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1887-12-06
court and that the present case is COW


fully the case of Osborn against the
United States, which is especially relied
upon by counsel for the bondholders to
maintain this proposition, and says that
it does not apply TO the questions now
raised. The present case, he SAYS, stands
upon an altogether different footing.
Admitting all that is claimed as 20 the
breach of the complaiuants' contract by
the State, there is nevertheless no foun-
dalton in law for the relief asked. For
the breach Of it's contract bv n State it is
conceded there is TO remedy by suit
against the State OF Virginia itself,
because Of the eleventh amendment
10 the Constitution, which secures to o
State immunity against suit by indi-
viduals OF other States or aliens. This
immunity includes not only direct &C.
tons Tor damages for breach of contract
brought against a State by name, but all
other actions and suits against
at law or in equity. a bill Of equity for
the specific performance of a contract
against State by name, it il admit
ted, could not be brought In
Hagood rs. Southern it was de-
cided that in such a bill where
State was not nominally party TO the
record brought against its officers and
agents, having no personal interest in
the subject matter of the suit and de-
Tending only as representing the State,
where "the things required by decree
TO be done and performed by them are
the very things which when done and
performed constitute the performance of
the alleged contract by the State" the
court was without jurisdiction, be-
cause it was suit against the State.
The converse OF the proposition
must be equally true, because 1t is con-
tained-that is, a bill the object of which
is 10y injunction indirectly to compel a
specific performance OF contract by for
bidding all those acts and doings which
constitute breaches of contract must also
necessarily be a suit against State in
such a case. Though the State be not
nOminally a party on record, if the
defendants are its officers and agents,
through when alone it can act in the
doing and refusing Of thiAgs which con-
stitute o breach of its contract, the suit
Is still in substance, though not in form,
a suit against the State. Such is the
precise character Of the suit in the Cir
cult Court against the petitioners in
which the order was made. the violation
of which constitutes the contempt for
which they have been committed to i'm
prisonment, from which they seek de-
livery by these writs.
1t may be asked what is the true
ground of distinction 50 far IS the pro-
lection of the Constitution Of the United
States is invoked between the contract
rights of the complainant in such a suit
and other rights of person and of pro-
perry In the latter case, it Is said, juris-
diction may be exercised against iudi-
vidual defendants, notwithstanding the
official character of their acts while il
cases Of the former this description OF
jurisdiction is denied. The distlnc-
ton, however, is obvious. The acts
alleged in the bill rs threatened by the
defendants, the present petitioners, are
violations Of IN assumed contract be-
tween the State Of Virginia and the COM
plainants only as they are considered to
be acts of the State OF Virginia. The
defendants as individuals not being par
ties to that contract, are not capable IN
law Of committing breach of it. There
is no remedy for breach Of contract, nc
tual or apprehended, except upon the
contract itself and between those who
are 10y law parties to It,
II cannot be doubted that the eleventh
amendment to the Constitution operates
to create an important distinction be-
tween the contracts OF State with indi.
yiduals and contracts between individual
parties in contracts between n State and
individuals. BY virtue Of the eleventh
amendment to the Constitution, there
being no remedy by suit against State,
a contract is substantially without sane
ton, except that which arises out of the
honor and good faith Of the State itself,
and these are not subject TO coercion.
Although a State may at the inception
of a contract have consented to subject
itself to a suit, it may subsequently with
draw that consent and resume its Ongl
nal immunity without a violation OF the
obligation OF its contract in constitu
tional sense. The very object and pur
pose of the eleventh amendment were tC
prevent the indignity of suhjecting
State to the coercive process OF judi
cial tribunal at the instance OF pr
vate parties. 1t was thought tC
be neither becoming nor con
venient that the several State
invested with that large residium o
sovereignty which had not been dele
GATED to the United States should BE-
summoned as defendants to answer com
plants of private persons, or that TIT
course of their public policy and admin
istration Of their public affairs should b
subject to control by the mandates o
judicial tribunals without their consen
and in favor OF individual interests.
By fair and liberal Interpretation o
the eleventh amendment 1t must be helC
TO cover not only suits brought agalns
the State by name, but those also agains
its representatives, where a State, though
not named rs such, Is nevertheless th
only real party against which alone re
/ lief is asked and against which th
| Judgment or decree cifectually operates
/ But this is not intended in any way I
infringe upon the principal which JUST
fees snits against individual defendants
who. under color Of authority OF uncon
stitutional Legislation by a State, ar
guilty of personal trespass and wrongs
ut need not be apprehended, Jus
tice Matthews says, "that the construc
ton applied to the eleventh amendmen
in this case will embarrlss or obstruc
the execution Of the laws OF the Unite
States in cases where State officers ar
Guilty of acting in violation of them be
cause the United States deals with ther
as individuals owing obedience to It's au
thority. The penalties of disobedienc
NAV be visited upon State officers with
ont regard TO the character in which the
assume to act or the nature OF the exemp
ton they may plead. Nothing can be il
terposed between an individual and tn
obligation he owes to the Constitutlo
and laws Of the United States. Ii, there
fore. a State officer under color OF Stat
laws comes into conflict with superiC
authority and valid laws OF the Unite
States he is stripped Of his represents
tive character and subjected TO the col
sequences of his conduct. A State hc
no power 10 impart to him any immunit
from responsibility to the supreme Ia
A. IT,,faI Gtotac -